Religious rite gives evolution a helping hand (from NS)

[Parsifal]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... -hand.html

Interesting...

[tymygy]

Why am I not surprised?

Another shotgun blast to the face of creationists.

I wonder how they'll respond......

 

[PoopShoot]

Why am I not surprised?

Another shotgun blast to the face of creationists.

I wonder how they'll respond......

 

They'll say adaptation isn't evolution.  In this particualr instance, however, I'd agree with them (to a point), the study in unimpressive.

[Dretlin]

Can anyone name any other species that has had their evolution influenced by mankind?

[PoopShoot]

Can anyone name any other species that has had their evolution influenced by mankind?

There's a crab in Japan that has lumps on it's back.  Sometimes those lumps look like a samurai mask.  The local fishermen wouldn't eat the ones that look like samurai, so now there are a species of crab that look like samurai.

[Tank]

Can anyone name any other species that has had their evolution influenced by mankind?

Peppered Moth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth

[hackenslash]

Why am I not surprised?

Another shotgun blast to the face of creationists.

I wonder how they'll respond......

 

They'll say adaptation isn't evolution.  In this particualr instance, however, I'd agree with them (to a point), the study in unimpressive.

That isn't adaptation, it's evolution. Not only that, it's evolution by natural selection. Bear in mind that the men with their toxin form a part of the natural environment of the organisms in question. What is at play here is differential survival in the presence of a selecting mechanism, in the form of the toxin. Those with the beneficial mutation that increases their survivability have an advantage over those who don't.

Adaptation implies that mutations occur in response to the environment. They don't. The mutations occur anyway, regardless of the environment.

[hackenslash]

Can anyone name any other species that has had their evolution influenced by mankind?

Oodles:

Dodos
The thylacine
Dogs
Many species of bird
Elephants

Indeed, it could be argued that pretty much every extant species has had its evolution influenced by mankind.

[Dretlin]

Thank you Poopshot and hackenslash!

And Tank, I remember seeing an article on TV about the Peppered Moth. I can not quite remember what the subject was but your link jogged my memory.

[karadan]

*Edit*

Tank beat me to it.  :facepalm2:  

[PoopShoot]

That isn't adaptation, it's evolution. Not only that, it's evolution by natural selection.

They're still the same species and they have no novel features.  They merely adapted to a toxin.

Bear in mind that the men with their toxin form a part of the natural environment of the organisms in question. What is at play here is differential survival in the presence of a selecting mechanism, in the form of the toxin. Those with the beneficial mutation that increases their survivability have an advantage over those who don't.

I understand the mechanism, it's just unimpressive in this instance.

Adaptation implies that mutations occur in response to the environment. They don't. The mutations occur anyway, regardless of the environment.

No, adaptation implies a proliferation of a phenotype that addresses something in the environment, at least as far as biological adaptation is concerned.

[PoopShoot]

Anywhoo, i once told a creationist the Peppered Moth story and they said it didn't count because that was micro evolution...

 :facepalm2:

In all fairness, they're often taught from infancy that evolution means a dog one day gave birth to a cat and anything else is microevolution, which means it's still the same thing, but god made it so it could adapt to a new environment to help it spread over his wonderful planet.  They're also taught that a proof against evolution is Gouldian punctuation.

[hackenslash]

They're still the same species and they have no novel features.  They merely adapted to a toxin.

No they didn't. And they do have novel features, namely increased resistance to a toxin. That isn't adaptation, it's evolution.

I understand the mechanism, it's just unimpressive in this instance.

So it has to be impressive to be interesting? This is categorical evidence for evolution.

No, adaptation implies a proliferation of a phenotype that addresses something in the environment, at least as far as biological adaptation is concerned.

Biological adaptation in the sense you're employing it is a myth. it doesn't happen. This simply isn't adaptation, which necessarily implies a response to the environment. This isn't a response to the environment, but differential survival within that environment. An allele has arisen that confers increased resistance to a toxin among certain members of a species, and those members carrying that allele have an advantage over those without it, which means that that allele is expressed with greater frequency in future generations. The increase in frequency of this allele is the very definition of evolution.

[PoopShoot]

So it has to be impressive to be interesting? This is categorical evidence for evolution.

So what?  I have categorical evidence in my front yard that dog feces are brown.  Mundane, garden variety evidence for evolution in the form of yet another environmental adaptation is uninteresting.  It can be found in nearly every species of animal on the planet, including humans.

Biological adaptation in the sense you're employing it is a myth. it doesn't happen.

Yet you just posted evidence that it does.

This simply isn't adaptation, which necessarily implies a response to the environment.

Yet the term is employed by biologists all the time sans your added implication.  That implication is ONLY inherent when speaking of behavioral adaptation.

This isn't a response to the environment, but differential survival within that environment. An allele has arisen that confers increased resistance to a toxin among certain members of a species, and those members carrying that allele have an advantage over those without it, which means that that allele is expressed with greater frequency in future generations.

Yep.  That's how biological adaptation works.

The increase in frequency of this allele is the very definition of evolution.

So what?

[Reginus]

But this is just micro-evolution, not macro-evolution.